Cincinatti, Ohio - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and a coalition of free speech advocates filed an amicus brief supporting thedirty.com's appeal of a defamation ruling that contradicts protections for website operators contained in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). In the brief, filed in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Tuesday, the coalition argues that websites—even those that host offensive gossip—cannot be held liable for information posted by third parties.

The case centers around a 2009 message that a visitor posted to thedirty.com alleging that a teacher and a cheerleader for the Cincinnati Bengals had "slept with every" player on the football team. The subject of the post, Sarah Jones, then sued the site's operator, Dirty World LLC, and its editor and publisher, Nik Richie. A district court denied thedirty.com's claim of immunity under the CDA on the basis that the site "encouraged" defamatory content from third parties. A jury subsequently awarded Jones $338,000.

The ruling, if upheld, would have serious ramifications for free speech on the Internet. Since the passage of the CDA in 1996, courts have consistently held that website operators may be held responsible for unlawful material posted by users only if those operators directly solicited or induced the content. In this case, the district court denied immunity to the website based on other factors such as the website's name and cultivation of a negative atmosphere. The court's holding could open the door to lawsuits against a wide array of websites that host critical speech, including sites that display consumer reviews or reports of malfeasance.

"In order for speech to be protected online, the platforms that carry speech need to be strongly and unquestionably protected," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman said. "Website operators should not and cannot lose legal immunity for being offensive. They can only be held liable if they engaged in actionable behavior themselves. Here, that did not happen."

In addition to EFF, four groups joined the friend-of-the-court brief: ACLU of Kentucky, Center for Democracy & Technology, Digital Media Law Project and Public Participation Project. Wendy Seltzer and Adam Holland of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse also signed onto the brief.

"Section 230 gives website operators the certainty that they can offer platforms for user speech without the risk of spending every day litigating over comment sections," ACLU Staff Attorney Lee Rowland said. "The trial court's incorrect decision risks eroding that certainty."

Related Updates

Today, EU negotiators in Strasbourg struggled to craft the final language of the Copyright in the Single Digital Market Directive, in their last possible meeting for 2019. They failed, thanks in large part to the Directive’s two most controversial clauses: Article 11, which requires paid licenses for linking to news...

Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter provide an opportunity for everyone to have a voice on the Internet, to communicate with friends, post their views, and comment on movies or the president. However, the fact that they provide a broad, open platform for speech doesn’t automatically mean they...

EFF, as part of a coalition of over sixty other human rights groups led by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International —still have questions for Sundar Pichai, Google’s CEO. Leaks and rumors continue to spread from Google about “Project Dragonfly,” a secretive plan to create a...

Facebook just quietly adopted a policy that could push thousands of innocent people off of the platform. The new “sexual solicitation” rules forbid pornography and other explicit sexual content (which was already functionally banned under a different statute), but they don’t stop there: they also ban...

Social media platform Tumblr has announced a ban on so-called “adult content,” a move made, it seems, in reaction to Tumblr’s app being removed from the Apple app store. But while making the app more available is in theory good for Tumblr users, in practice what’s about to...

California is still trying to gag websites from sharing true, publicly available, newsworthy information about actors. While this effort is aimed at the admirable goal of fighting age discrimination in Hollywood, the law unconstitutionally punishes publishers of truthful, newsworthy information and denies the public important information it needs to fully...

The New York Times published a blockbuster story about Facebook that exposed how the company used so-called “smear merchants” to attack organizations critical of the platform. The story was shocking on a number of levels, revealing that Facebook’s hired guns stooped to dog-whistling, anti-Semitic attacks aimed...

We’ve taken Internet service companies and platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to task for bad content moderation practices that remove speech and silence voices that deserve to be heard. We’ve catalogued their awful decisions. We’ve written about their ambiguous policies, inconsistent enforcement, and...

Spanish version San Francisco—The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and more than 70 human and digital rights groups called on Mark Zuckerberg today to add real transparency and accountability to Facebook’s content removal process. Specifically, the groups demand that Facebook clearly explain how much content it removes, both rightly...